My first grandmaster was fire with storm as a second school initially. The fizzling on storm and with fire got me killed on a regular basis. Fast forward to now. I have played with all schools as a primary. Storm is my last one. Very early in the game, fizzling wasn’t as much of an issue. As I went to Colossus Blvd, the fizzling issue seemed to kick into high gear. I decided to get gear that gave me better accuracy. My accuracy was 76% now. I got through Colossus Blvd after dying a few times, and I decided to keep track of my fizzling from Krokotopia on. At this point, I am in Marleybone about to do the Katz’s lab dungeon. Keep in mind I understand the concept of the card hitting 70% of the time each time is cast and not 70% of the total. Below is my data.

Total Storm attacks: 759 (Does not include traps, shields, converts ect.)

Fizzles: 386 Hits: 373 Hit percentage – 49.9% (50%)

Most mathematicians will tell you this type of representation is highly unusual considering the 70% equal 7 out of 10 times. Yes this could be bad luck but…

Against Storm Monsters & Boses: 117 (Does not include traps, shields, converts ect.)

Fizzles: 58 Hits: 59 Hit percentage – (50%)

Against storm monsters this was roughly the same but……

Storm Monsters attacks against me: 101 (Does not include traps, shields, converts ect.)

Fizzles: 24 Hits: 77 Hit percentage – (77%)

You can see the storm monsters hit me at a much higher level. Interestingly when dealing with 70%, 7 out of 10, 70 out of 100 ect., mathematicians say if anything the percentage is more likely to be higher than 70% rather than lower.

I bring this up for two reasons. The first reason is its hard data. The second reason is my data, while specific to me, confirms many people’s complaints about fizzling and shows the games representation is not an accurate one. When I discussed this information with a math teacher at a university his response and I quote “If the game is consistently hashing out the numbers you showed me, I can almost guarantee the accuracy setting is not accurate.”

while this data is interesting it doesn't demonstrate what you think it does. The card has a chance of success, not a rate of success. It doesn't know what happened last time or what will happen next time. It has a 70% chance of working each time. If you miss three times in a row, the next time you use the card guess what, it only has a 70% chance of working, no more, no less. IN theory, over the course of a very long sample (orders of magnatude beyond your sample size) , the pattern of success and failure will more closely resemble the chance of success that is displayed on the card. while compiling this data set works for a rate of success it doesnt demonstrate the accuracy or innaccuracy of KI's chance of success formulas.

Plus also balance is 85% no fiz and life is 90% no fizzle. 5% shouldn't make TOO big of a difference but for some reason it does. My life RARELY fizzles (although rebirth fizzled twice in a row during pvp and centaur fizzled 3 times during combat) while my balance fizzles more than storm!

while this data is interesting it doesn't demonstrate what you think it does. The card has a chance of success, not a rate of success. It doesn't know what happened last time or what will happen next time. It has a 70% chance of working each time. If you miss three times in a row, the next time you use the card guess what, it only has a 70% chance of working, no more, no less. IN theory, over the course of a very long sample (orders of magnatude beyond your sample size) , the pattern of success and failure will more closely resemble the chance of success that is displayed on the card. while compiling this data set works for a rate of success it doesnt demonstrate the accuracy or innaccuracy of KI's chance of success formulas.

I think you need to go back and read the first part of the post. I adresses this in part as I say "Keep in mind I understand the concept of the card hitting 70% of the time each time is cast and not 70% of the total. "

Secondly I charted this according the minimal guidelines to account for each time and not overall. This is why I underlined it in my first post.

My data, and for me only, as again I stated, does show that in my case, the accuracy percentages are not working according to the percentages you would get if you did this on your own. Mathematicians tell us the percentages should almost always be higher than 70%, when consistently using 7 out of 10 in a formula each time rather than overall. When you take the results of each time you try a 7 out of 10 chance, according to research, you should get something higher than 70% overall. Even if the data goes lower, anything lower than 63% overall after doing a 7 out of 10 draw 100 times is considered a statistical anomoly.

I was wondering the same thing. I dont think the fizzle rate is right in this game. For example my Death fizzles 4 times out of 10 making a 60%. For some reason you fizzle the most in PVP and it seems always when you are going to hit your opponent with the attack that will defeat him.

This is happening because at first fire spells are weak that's why they got you killed and get better along the way.The Storm School has the highest chance of fizzling trust me i know

I don't quite follow your point. The concept is similar to say, tossing a die. where when you toss a die, it will either come up as head or tail, with 50% probability each. And as your sample size gets larger and larger (i.e. as more dice are tossed), you should get closer and closer to the population mean (i.e. head should come up 50% of the time).

So basically the author has the correct method. over 700 attacks is considered a large sample size and his sample success rate which is about 50% is way below the population mean (70%). So unless there is bias in the sample (i am assuming not, the sample looks random to me) then it is a good representation for storm accuracy rate in this game.

kordach wrote:

while this data is interesting it doesn't demonstrate what you think it does. The card has a chance of success, not a rate of success. It doesn't know what happened last time or what will happen next time. It has a 70% chance of working each time. If you miss three times in a row, the next time you use the card guess what, it only has a 70% chance of working, no more, no less. IN theory, over the course of a very long sample (orders of magnatude beyond your sample size) , the pattern of success and failure will more closely resemble the chance of success that is displayed on the card. while compiling this data set works for a rate of success it doesnt demonstrate the accuracy or innaccuracy of KI's chance of success formulas.